Let me begin by saying that I don't see this as a bad thing. I remember reading somewhere that many campaigns don't get past lvl 10-12 so I think if the system can encourage play at higher levels then that's a good thing.
I ask this because I'm noticing that many of the Feats and class traits are tied to the PB instead of granting a flat bonus. This means that Feats that used to be borderline OP like Great Weapon Master now do scaling damage instead of a +10 bonus. Alert is another one and I'm sure there are more.
Is this some sort of balance thing or, as I've surmised, is it to encouraging players who want the big numbers to try higher levels of play?
Us? You mean is it encouraging DM's to actually do their job. I've literally seen games, told by DM's on reditt, that have lasted 3 to 7 years, and still no one has reached 12 or 15th level.
I mean I understand people got their lives to live, but just because some players can't make it, is no reason to make those who can pay the price. The game goes on, even if they miss out of XP or leveling up. It's my opinion, but If you haven't made 20th level in two years, you probably never will.
I know I'm late to the party too, but I wanted to add one thought to the mix, specifically regarding the 2024 updates. It seems to me (and I thought they had said this somewhere) that Wotc is really trying to make is easier for new people, especially new DMs to get into the game. One way to do that is make statblocks simpler. If had NEVER played D&D before, possibly even a ttrpg before, and I picked up the games, got my group together, started the adventure, looked at an archmage that was going to be my main villain and saw this giant list of spells and enumerated spells slots, plus other attacks and abilities and was trying to figure out what to do with that guy I'd panic. But with a pared down list and simplified look, it gives me a much easier time figuring out what he should do.
"But what about..." I know, I know, there's all the cases to be made, I'm just saying I think that's their goal. Or at least one of their goals. The addendum here being that the monster still feels powerful and flavorful even if they don't have all the things they used to have. Will they be successful? We'll see! Cheers! :)
Us? You mean is it encouraging DM's to actually do their job.
DMing isn't a job unless you're a paid DM, and in any case, there are a lot of reasons why a multi-year campaign might not reach higher levels other than missed sessions -- plenty of games just don't have level-ups very often (either because they're using waypoints and the DM doesn't award them particularly often, or they're using xp and the game doesn't have a lot of combat).
Us? You mean is it encouraging DM's to actually do their job.
DMing isn't a job unless you're a paid DM, and in any case, there are a lot of reasons why a multi-year campaign might not reach higher levels other than missed sessions -- plenty of games just don't have level-ups very often (either because they're using waypoints and the DM doesn't award them particularly often, or they're using xp and the game doesn't have a lot of combat).
Mine are slow compared to what is the published norm, and they get really slow post level 9. I grew up in the era where getting to 20 meant years and years of gaming. and it feels better in the narrative to me. The rapid leveling of more recent editions gives a weird vibe to me, like a if its that fast why isn't everyone level 20 type of feel. I like the feeling where its something where the characters really had to put in the work to advance. Don't get me wrong early editions had their quirks as well like gold=XP. Which sure you can rationalize but realistically is just a game mechanic. But the length of time, players spent to master their profession felt better to me. So yeah its a year+ campaign for me normally. How long that + is varies.
I feel the same as a player, in too many published adventures I was leveling so fast I never had time to appreciate the levels I gained. Level x I gain Y ability, before I really learn it I'm another level and another ability down the line. Slow that crap down so I can appreciate the levels I earn.
I actually liked using the xp system to level up during the games I ran because I did play in too many games ran by others who did milestone and it always felt so slow to level up. I liked my players being able to face a decently tough fight each session in addition to the other role play aspects of exploration and social interactions as they progress the plot. They didn't get a long rest every session but every session it would end with the party taking a short rest and after a few sessions they would get a long rest. When running the XP this way the party would often level up every 4 or so sessions and the game typically wrapped up in the level 11 or 12 zone. Again mostly because the "big bads" I had decided on early were a decent challenge. The one time I ran a big multi-faction final battle, and it was a mistake. The players were still happy with it, but I felt there was too many actions going on, I had way to many NPC's and monsters I was controlling and I felt I wanted my players to get more actions. The final battle took the entire session, combat only lasted 6 rounds but there was so many things happening in those rounds that the first 2 or 3 rounds were like 40 minutes each.
This said with these higher CR monsters, with all the stuff the MM seems to be adding I could very easily see my party making it to level 20 more often and probably making it there in a year or so with once a week or once every other week play time. I am of the philosophy that games lasting more than a year are a huge luxury. I was fortunate enough to have a Star Wars game last 5 years. But I think with the amount of games my group likes and the want for us to play multiple characters I think getting to 20 after a year or year and a half is a solid amount of time and allows us to try out other things as well.
I actually liked using the xp system to level up during the games I ran because I did play in too many games ran by others who did milestone and it always felt so slow to level up.
My experience is that milestone leveling is faster than xp leveling. For example, in Curse of Strahd, with milestone you have to run through about half the encounter areas in the module to be sufficiently leveled up to deal with Castle Ravenloft. With XP... you have to farm wandering encounters, if you clear every fixed encounter other than Castle Ravenloft and the Amber Temple, you'll wind up with around 130k xp split among the party members, typically leaving them at level 7; to get up to level 9 with a party of 4 requires an additional 66,000 xp.
I actually liked using the xp system to level up during the games I ran because I did play in too many games ran by others who did milestone and it always felt so slow to level up.
My experience is that milestone leveling is faster than xp leveling. For example, in Curse of Strahd, with milestone you have to run through about half the encounter areas in the module to be sufficiently leveled up to deal with Castle Ravenloft. With XP... you have to farm wandering encounters, if you clear every fixed encounter other than Castle Ravenloft and the Amber Temple, you'll wind up with around 130k xp split among the party members, typically leaving them at level 7; to get up to level 9 with a party of 4 requires an additional 66,000 xp.
I find this true in Modules, but in non-module games the DM would almost never level the party up regardless of how much the plot had progressed, you would hit around level 7 and then just be stuck there for 4 months because the DM either just forgot to level you up or because he hadn't explored everything he wanted to explore with your level 7 characters.
Us? You mean is it encouraging DM's to actually do their job.
DMing isn't a job unless you're a paid DM, and in any case, there are a lot of reasons why a multi-year campaign might not reach higher levels other than missed sessions -- plenty of games just don't have level-ups very often (either because they're using waypoints and the DM doesn't award them particularly often, or they're using xp and the game doesn't have a lot of combat).
It's a a job. Volunteer job. There's no such thing as a paid DM job. I feel sorry for the young people who are bamboozled into paying someone to do something that's always been free. I think the owners should sue them for a percentage of what they make.
It's a a job. Volunteer job. There's no such thing as a paid DM job. I feel sorry for the young people who are bamboozled into paying someone to do something that's always been free.
If people are paying you to do it, it's a paid job. As for deception... as long as the DM provides the service they're promising (which may well be a problem, I don't have personal experience with paid DMs but the fundamentals make me a bit leery) they're not bamboozling anyone, and I wouldn't be surprised if the average age is older, because of who has disposable income.
Us? You mean is it encouraging DM's to actually do their job.
DMing isn't a job unless you're a paid DM, and in any case, there are a lot of reasons why a multi-year campaign might not reach higher levels other than missed sessions -- plenty of games just don't have level-ups very often (either because they're using waypoints and the DM doesn't award them particularly often, or they're using xp and the game doesn't have a lot of combat).
It's a a job. Volunteer job. There's no such thing as a paid DM job. I feel sorry for the young people who are bamboozled into paying someone to do something that's always been free. I think the owners should sue them for a percentage of what they make.
45 years I have been doing this. Been to cons since the 1e days, played with Gygax, played with both Cooks, had multiple conversations with Kuntz, was friends with Jaquays, hung out as a kid with the minds of Flying Buffalo, survived the sheer unmitigated horrors of the 3.x era...
Were you aware that cons always had pay to play games? That it is far more than "young people" who do so? That there are companies who offer exclusive vacations that cost thousands of dollars -- just to play D&D.
Apparently not. You were also apparently not aware that this has been an argument among hardcore DMs for decades.
There's no such thing as a paid DM job.
This is a flat out falsehood. An untrue statement. It is not expressed as opinion by any indication.
something that's always been free.
This is also an untrue statement. There were folks charging the price of snacks (which is a payment) at least as early as 1976. Factually.
I feel sorry for the young people who are bamboozled into paying someone
I have received payment to act as a DM, and never once bamboozled anyone, so I perceive this as a direct attack.
The form of that payment has varied over the years, but it has still been a payment.
I think the owners should sue them for a percentage of what they make.
They tried to set specific policies for that not all that long ago, in fact. It did not go well.
Besides, the lawyer fees would exceed Hasbro's annual revenue. Not worth it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Back on topic, I can see why currently it's rare to get to high levels. It takes a long time (it took us two years of meeting twice a month to finish Rime of the Frostmaiden, which went to L13) and people get flakey. Worse, the game lends itself even further from RP to Dungeon Crawling as it progresses - a lot of people like the mix. It's not undoable, to be sure, but it's less effort at lower levels. Combine that with even the monsters becoming less common with higher CRs and the other issues...I don't find it surprising that campaigns stay low.
It'd be nice if they do manage to make higher level play more viable. We'll see in two weeks how much of that is real and effective, and what is just ad-talk.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Us? You mean is it encouraging DM's to actually do their job.
DMing isn't a job unless you're a paid DM, and in any case, there are a lot of reasons why a multi-year campaign might not reach higher levels other than missed sessions -- plenty of games just don't have level-ups very often (either because they're using waypoints and the DM doesn't award them particularly often, or they're using xp and the game doesn't have a lot of combat).
It's a a job. Volunteer job.
Ignoring the "paid GMing" digression, it's not a job.
It's a hobby. It's a thing you do for fun. If you're not having fun DMing, you shouldn't be doing it.
(Does it require work? Usually, but lots of hobbies are that way.)
Us? You mean is it encouraging DM's to actually do their job.
DMing isn't a job unless you're a paid DM, and in any case, there are a lot of reasons why a multi-year campaign might not reach higher levels other than missed sessions -- plenty of games just don't have level-ups very often (either because they're using waypoints and the DM doesn't award them particularly often, or they're using xp and the game doesn't have a lot of combat).
It's a a job. Volunteer job. There's no such thing as a paid DM job. I feel sorry for the young people who are bamboozled into paying someone to do something that's always been free. I think the owners should sue them for a percentage of what they make.
45 years I have been doing this. Been to cons since the 1e days, played with Gygax, played with both Cooks, had multiple conversations with Kuntz, was friends with Jaquays, hung out as a kid with the minds of Flying Buffalo, survived the sheer unmitigated horrors of the 3.x era...
Were you aware that cons always had pay to play games? That it is far more than "young people" who do so? That there are companies who offer exclusive vacations that cost thousands of dollars -- just to play D&D.
Apparently not. You were also apparently not aware that this has been an argument among hardcore DMs for decades.
There's no such thing as a paid DM job.
This is a flat out falsehood. An untrue statement. It is not expressed as opinion by any indication.
something that's always been free.
This is also an untrue statement. There were folks charging the price of snacks (which is a payment) at least as early as 1976. Factually.
I feel sorry for the young people who are bamboozled into paying someone
I have received payment to act as a DM, and never once bamboozled anyone, so I perceive this as a direct attack.
The form of that payment has varied over the years, but it has still been a payment.
I think the owners should sue them for a percentage of what they make.
They tried to set specific policies for that not all that long ago, in fact. It did not go well.
Besides, the lawyer fees would exceed Hasbro's annual revenue. Not worth it.
Glad you have been doing this for 45 years. I'm not too far behind I started as high school Sophomore back in '82
The enormous power leap in PC's in the new edition also makes it virtually impossible for DM's to run a high level game, especially inexperienced DM's. PC's were essentially gods beyond level 9 previously, and now the problem has worsened. No DM is going to run a long term campaign with say level 10 and up PC's for any length of time, because it is exhausting trying to come up with actual challenges for the group.
The new MM is going to have much more powerful monsters. It has to. But even then, there is no way an inexperienced DM can successfully step into encounters with high level PC's.
It might be just because I knew the systems backwards and forwards since I lived and breathed it for decades. But Becmi-2E I found much easier to DM at high levels. For all the absurdity spellcasters could do I found two things to balance it 1, there were a lot of hard counters vs magic, 2 a dude with a sword(weapon of choice) would do insane damage each and every round to almost any foe without any trouble where the wizards etc would have a hard time scratching it from saves on a 2 to magic resistance etc it wasn't easy for the casters. They were insanely powerful but usually more from the utility they provided, and buffs they gave vs direct combat capability, though mid levels they seemed to really shine good spells enemies not tuned as well vs magic. And perhaps more importantly it felt like the intended scope of the campaign would go into areas where none of that mattered.
The enormous power leap in PC's in the new edition also makes it virtually impossible for DM's to run a high level game, especially inexperienced DM's. PC's were essentially gods beyond level 9 previously, and now the problem has worsened. No DM is going to run a long term campaign with say level 10 and up PC's for any length of time, because it is exhausting trying to come up with actual challenges for the group.
The new MM is going to have much more powerful monsters. It has to. But even then, there is no way an inexperienced DM can successfully step into encounters with high level PC's.
To be fair, the power increase for higher level PCs in 2024 is nothing compared to higher level scaling in 3.x, it's just that the scaling of high CR monsters is really weak. In 5e, it's entirely reasonable for an army of mooks (say, bandit) to drive off an ancient dragon. In 3.x, a mature adult is probably beyond the capabilities of roughly equivalent mooks (roughly 2nd level warriors).
The enormous power leap in PC's in the new edition also makes it virtually impossible for DM's to run a high level game, especially inexperienced DM's. PC's were essentially gods beyond level 9 previously, and now the problem has worsened. No DM is going to run a long term campaign with say level 10 and up PC's for any length of time, because it is exhausting trying to come up with actual challenges for the group.
The new MM is going to have much more powerful monsters. It has to. But even then, there is no way an inexperienced DM can successfully step into encounters with high level PC's.
It might be just because I knew the systems backwards and forwards since I lived and breathed it for decades. But Becmi-2E I found much easier to DM at high levels. For all the absurdity spellcasters could do I found two things to balance it 1, there were a lot of hard counters vs magic, 2 a dude with a sword(weapon of choice) would do insane damage each and every round to almost any foe without any trouble where the wizards etc would have a hard time scratching it from saves on a 2 to magic resistance etc it wasn't easy for the casters. They were insanely powerful but usually more from the utility they provided, and buffs they gave vs direct combat capability, though mid levels they seemed to really shine good spells enemies not tuned as well vs magic. And perhaps more importantly it felt like the intended scope of the campaign would go into areas where none of that mattered.
This is why I think higher level play is going to be a bit easier with 2024. It seems the saves, initiatives, legendary resistances and magic resistances have all become either stronger or more prevalent in higher CR monsters and with the increase to martial damage I feel we are going to be seeing a lot of the same here in 2024 where casters will struggle to get a spell that gives the monster a save to land, but those spells will be perfect against the boss's "minions" since they lack those same resistances making the caster solid for utility, buffs and "crowd control".
The enormous power leap in PC's in the new edition also makes it virtually impossible for DM's to run a high level game, especially inexperienced DM's. PC's were essentially gods beyond level 9 previously, and now the problem has worsened. No DM is going to run a long term campaign with say level 10 and up PC's for any length of time, because it is exhausting trying to come up with actual challenges for the group.
The new MM is going to have much more powerful monsters. It has to. But even then, there is no way an inexperienced DM can successfully step into encounters with high level PC's.
It might be just because I knew the systems backwards and forwards since I lived and breathed it for decades. But Becmi-2E I found much easier to DM at high levels. For all the absurdity spellcasters could do I found two things to balance it 1, there were a lot of hard counters vs magic, 2 a dude with a sword(weapon of choice) would do insane damage each and every round to almost any foe without any trouble where the wizards etc would have a hard time scratching it from saves on a 2 to magic resistance etc it wasn't easy for the casters. They were insanely powerful but usually more from the utility they provided, and buffs they gave vs direct combat capability, though mid levels they seemed to really shine good spells enemies not tuned as well vs magic. And perhaps more importantly it felt like the intended scope of the campaign would go into areas where none of that mattered.
This is why I think higher level play is going to be a bit easier with 2024. It seems the saves, initiatives, legendary resistances and magic resistances have all become either stronger or more prevalent in higher CR monsters and with the increase to martial damage I feel we are going to be seeing a lot of the same here in 2024 where casters will struggle to get a spell that gives the monster a save to land, but those spells will be perfect against the boss's "minions" since they lack those same resistances making the caster solid for utility, buffs and "crowd control".
I hope so, I have not seen enough from the MM to make a decision.
Tbh, I never found balancing combat at higher tiers hard. It helps if you maintain a narrative pace that doesn't allow much rest.
For me, the challenge has always been the gear-shift in campaign scope that happens when teleportation circle / transport via plant / teleport / plane shift come on stream.
Up to that point, the world is manageable - the players tell you where they're going, if you've got good ideas for scenarios that could happen when they get there, great, if not you can pad out the travel section with a couple of diverting one shots that happen on the road so that you have good ideas when they arrive at their intended destination.
After that point... there's far more improv, because players can and will move the story to whatever random-@ss location takes their fancy, and as DM you've just got to pull that location and some relevant scenarios out of thin air because that's what the game designers felt DMs should have to do for L11+ parties.
I've DMed a few 1-20 campaigns, and I enjoyed DMing the lower tiers a lot more than the higher tiers because I like to give players a fairly richly imagined world, rather than a sketchy one.
Personally I things this boils down to a few things intersecting -
1 You have super casual gamers that don't find it enjoyable to truly study the complexities of a class at higher level and play it well.
2 You have Power Gamers / DM's that min max and love levels 15-30
3 You have DM's that don't like the complexity of needing to know or make judgement calls on hazy rules with high level things intersecting
4 You have the basic fact that people usually take the path of least resistance ie (let me play/run 20 level 1-10) games as I know how to do it
5 All my campaigns (as DM) are designed to goto 20 some reboot at level 1 with the same group some go into Epic levels depends on the group Generally 1 level per session 1-10 1 level per 2 sessions 10-20. - I mean really if your playing with experienced groups how many times can you hit the thing with the +1 thing of pointiness.
All that said I don't even understand the concept of playing a game and depriving yourself or your players of 50% of the content by not at least shooting for end game.
I currently play in a l19 and a l26 game as a player order of magnitude 20x more fun than a level 6 game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Us? You mean is it encouraging DM's to actually do their job. I've literally seen games, told by DM's on reditt, that have lasted 3 to 7 years, and still no one has reached 12 or 15th level.
I mean I understand people got their lives to live, but just because some players can't make it, is no reason to make those who can pay the price. The game goes on, even if they miss out of XP or leveling up. It's my opinion, but If you haven't made 20th level in two years, you probably never will.
I know I'm late to the party too, but I wanted to add one thought to the mix, specifically regarding the 2024 updates. It seems to me (and I thought they had said this somewhere) that Wotc is really trying to make is easier for new people, especially new DMs to get into the game. One way to do that is make statblocks simpler. If had NEVER played D&D before, possibly even a ttrpg before, and I picked up the games, got my group together, started the adventure, looked at an archmage that was going to be my main villain and saw this giant list of spells and enumerated spells slots, plus other attacks and abilities and was trying to figure out what to do with that guy I'd panic. But with a pared down list and simplified look, it gives me a much easier time figuring out what he should do.
"But what about..." I know, I know, there's all the cases to be made, I'm just saying I think that's their goal. Or at least one of their goals. The addendum here being that the monster still feels powerful and flavorful even if they don't have all the things they used to have. Will they be successful? We'll see! Cheers! :)
DMing isn't a job unless you're a paid DM, and in any case, there are a lot of reasons why a multi-year campaign might not reach higher levels other than missed sessions -- plenty of games just don't have level-ups very often (either because they're using waypoints and the DM doesn't award them particularly often, or they're using xp and the game doesn't have a lot of combat).
Mine are slow compared to what is the published norm, and they get really slow post level 9. I grew up in the era where getting to 20 meant years and years of gaming. and it feels better in the narrative to me. The rapid leveling of more recent editions gives a weird vibe to me, like a if its that fast why isn't everyone level 20 type of feel. I like the feeling where its something where the characters really had to put in the work to advance. Don't get me wrong early editions had their quirks as well like gold=XP. Which sure you can rationalize but realistically is just a game mechanic. But the length of time, players spent to master their profession felt better to me. So yeah its a year+ campaign for me normally. How long that + is varies.
I feel the same as a player, in too many published adventures I was leveling so fast I never had time to appreciate the levels I gained. Level x I gain Y ability, before I really learn it I'm another level and another ability down the line. Slow that crap down so I can appreciate the levels I earn.
I actually liked using the xp system to level up during the games I ran because I did play in too many games ran by others who did milestone and it always felt so slow to level up. I liked my players being able to face a decently tough fight each session in addition to the other role play aspects of exploration and social interactions as they progress the plot. They didn't get a long rest every session but every session it would end with the party taking a short rest and after a few sessions they would get a long rest. When running the XP this way the party would often level up every 4 or so sessions and the game typically wrapped up in the level 11 or 12 zone. Again mostly because the "big bads" I had decided on early were a decent challenge. The one time I ran a big multi-faction final battle, and it was a mistake. The players were still happy with it, but I felt there was too many actions going on, I had way to many NPC's and monsters I was controlling and I felt I wanted my players to get more actions. The final battle took the entire session, combat only lasted 6 rounds but there was so many things happening in those rounds that the first 2 or 3 rounds were like 40 minutes each.
This said with these higher CR monsters, with all the stuff the MM seems to be adding I could very easily see my party making it to level 20 more often and probably making it there in a year or so with once a week or once every other week play time. I am of the philosophy that games lasting more than a year are a huge luxury. I was fortunate enough to have a Star Wars game last 5 years. But I think with the amount of games my group likes and the want for us to play multiple characters I think getting to 20 after a year or year and a half is a solid amount of time and allows us to try out other things as well.
My experience is that milestone leveling is faster than xp leveling. For example, in Curse of Strahd, with milestone you have to run through about half the encounter areas in the module to be sufficiently leveled up to deal with Castle Ravenloft. With XP... you have to farm wandering encounters, if you clear every fixed encounter other than Castle Ravenloft and the Amber Temple, you'll wind up with around 130k xp split among the party members, typically leaving them at level 7; to get up to level 9 with a party of 4 requires an additional 66,000 xp.
I find this true in Modules, but in non-module games the DM would almost never level the party up regardless of how much the plot had progressed, you would hit around level 7 and then just be stuck there for 4 months because the DM either just forgot to level you up or because he hadn't explored everything he wanted to explore with your level 7 characters.
It's a a job. Volunteer job. There's no such thing as a paid DM job. I feel sorry for the young people who are bamboozled into paying someone to do something that's always been free. I think the owners should sue them for a percentage of what they make.
Regardless of whether you believe in it or not, there are people who are paid to run tabletop RPGs.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
If people are paying you to do it, it's a paid job. As for deception... as long as the DM provides the service they're promising (which may well be a problem, I don't have personal experience with paid DMs but the fundamentals make me a bit leery) they're not bamboozling anyone, and I wouldn't be surprised if the average age is older, because of who has disposable income.
45 years I have been doing this. Been to cons since the 1e days, played with Gygax, played with both Cooks, had multiple conversations with Kuntz, was friends with Jaquays, hung out as a kid with the minds of Flying Buffalo, survived the sheer unmitigated horrors of the 3.x era...
Were you aware that cons always had pay to play games? That it is far more than "young people" who do so? That there are companies who offer exclusive vacations that cost thousands of dollars -- just to play D&D.
Apparently not. You were also apparently not aware that this has been an argument among hardcore DMs for decades.
This is a flat out falsehood. An untrue statement. It is not expressed as opinion by any indication.
This is also an untrue statement. There were folks charging the price of snacks (which is a payment) at least as early as 1976. Factually.
I have received payment to act as a DM, and never once bamboozled anyone, so I perceive this as a direct attack.
The form of that payment has varied over the years, but it has still been a payment.
They tried to set specific policies for that not all that long ago, in fact. It did not go well.
Besides, the lawyer fees would exceed Hasbro's annual revenue. Not worth it.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Back on topic, I can see why currently it's rare to get to high levels. It takes a long time (it took us two years of meeting twice a month to finish Rime of the Frostmaiden, which went to L13) and people get flakey. Worse, the game lends itself even further from RP to Dungeon Crawling as it progresses - a lot of people like the mix. It's not undoable, to be sure, but it's less effort at lower levels. Combine that with even the monsters becoming less common with higher CRs and the other issues...I don't find it surprising that campaigns stay low.
It'd be nice if they do manage to make higher level play more viable. We'll see in two weeks how much of that is real and effective, and what is just ad-talk.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Ignoring the "paid GMing" digression, it's not a job.
It's a hobby. It's a thing you do for fun. If you're not having fun DMing, you shouldn't be doing it.
(Does it require work? Usually, but lots of hobbies are that way.)
Glad you have been doing this for 45 years. I'm not too far behind I started as high school Sophomore back in '82
It might be just because I knew the systems backwards and forwards since I lived and breathed it for decades. But Becmi-2E I found much easier to DM at high levels. For all the absurdity spellcasters could do I found two things to balance it 1, there were a lot of hard counters vs magic, 2 a dude with a sword(weapon of choice) would do insane damage each and every round to almost any foe without any trouble where the wizards etc would have a hard time scratching it from saves on a 2 to magic resistance etc it wasn't easy for the casters. They were insanely powerful but usually more from the utility they provided, and buffs they gave vs direct combat capability, though mid levels they seemed to really shine good spells enemies not tuned as well vs magic. And perhaps more importantly it felt like the intended scope of the campaign would go into areas where none of that mattered.
To be fair, the power increase for higher level PCs in 2024 is nothing compared to higher level scaling in 3.x, it's just that the scaling of high CR monsters is really weak. In 5e, it's entirely reasonable for an army of mooks (say, bandit) to drive off an ancient dragon. In 3.x, a mature adult is probably beyond the capabilities of roughly equivalent mooks (roughly 2nd level warriors).
This is why I think higher level play is going to be a bit easier with 2024. It seems the saves, initiatives, legendary resistances and magic resistances have all become either stronger or more prevalent in higher CR monsters and with the increase to martial damage I feel we are going to be seeing a lot of the same here in 2024 where casters will struggle to get a spell that gives the monster a save to land, but those spells will be perfect against the boss's "minions" since they lack those same resistances making the caster solid for utility, buffs and "crowd control".
I hope so, I have not seen enough from the MM to make a decision.
Tbh, I never found balancing combat at higher tiers hard. It helps if you maintain a narrative pace that doesn't allow much rest.
For me, the challenge has always been the gear-shift in campaign scope that happens when teleportation circle / transport via plant / teleport / plane shift come on stream.
Up to that point, the world is manageable - the players tell you where they're going, if you've got good ideas for scenarios that could happen when they get there, great, if not you can pad out the travel section with a couple of diverting one shots that happen on the road so that you have good ideas when they arrive at their intended destination.
After that point... there's far more improv, because players can and will move the story to whatever random-@ss location takes their fancy, and as DM you've just got to pull that location and some relevant scenarios out of thin air because that's what the game designers felt DMs should have to do for L11+ parties.
I've DMed a few 1-20 campaigns, and I enjoyed DMing the lower tiers a lot more than the higher tiers because I like to give players a fairly richly imagined world, rather than a sketchy one.
Personally I things this boils down to a few things intersecting -
1 You have super casual gamers that don't find it enjoyable to truly study the complexities of a class at higher level and play it well.
2 You have Power Gamers / DM's that min max and love levels 15-30
3 You have DM's that don't like the complexity of needing to know or make judgement calls on hazy rules with high level things intersecting
4 You have the basic fact that people usually take the path of least resistance ie (let me play/run 20 level 1-10) games as I know how to do it
5 All my campaigns (as DM) are designed to goto 20 some reboot at level 1 with the same group some go into Epic levels depends on the group Generally 1 level per session 1-10 1 level per 2 sessions 10-20. - I mean really if your playing with experienced groups how many times can you hit the thing with the +1 thing of pointiness.
All that said I don't even understand the concept of playing a game and depriving yourself or your players of 50% of the content by not at least shooting for end game.
I currently play in a l19 and a l26 game as a player order of magnitude 20x more fun than a level 6 game.